A major decision that will impact Minnesotans’ privacy rights is waiting to be heard in the state’s court of Appeals.
It all started off simply enough. Jason and Jackie Wiebesick were a Golden Valley couple who lived in a duplex. One day, officials from the city approached them to ask permission to inspect their home. The stated reason was to collect information so as to make a decision over whether to renew the Wiebesick’s rental license.
Disturbed by the prospect of unfamiliar people walking around their home, the Wiebesick’s turned down the inspectors’ request. One might think it would have ended there, but the city saw to it that it didn’t.
Taking the case to court, Golden Valley authorities implored a county judge to issue a warrant overriding the Wiebesick’s objections and allowing them into the house. Tellingly, the judge refused their request for a warrant, prompting the city to reach even higher.
See video about the case on the next page:
come in without a proper warrant? ok be carried out in a bag
Amendment IV
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
O nooooooo…
Bull s**t
Twit City.
Lock and load
Sue them for violating their civil rights.
Now they are attacking our 4th Amendment rights. If people do not stand up and fight back America is lost.
This article is very misleading. There is a law that if you are in rental property (a tennant) the city has the right to inspect to make sure of compliance of a C of O. This law is in effect due to shady slumlord style renting where the rental property is out of code.
McCabe V. Mass 1995: When liberty is involved, as well as privacy of ones home, highest protection of the Fourth Amendment, namely warrant mechanism is required.